I honestly don't believe you have evaluated the data. I honestly don't believe you truly understand what evolution is or how it works. I honestly don't believe you even understand the incredibly flawed counterarguments against evolution that you parrot. The only thing I honestly believe you do understand is how to close your mind while pretending it's open.

BR Thanks for the complement. That is what I expect from a condescending control freak. I am not going to bother to change you as you are fixated on your evolution theory. You like many also not only claim to be athiest but hate the Christian God as well as the Christians. That too is fine. I am not going to try to change you. You are free to treat others as stupid who disagree with you. It is the liberal thing to do you know.

So carry on BR.

Don't let me get in your way.

I have an idea. Why don't you spend more time and effort making fun of Christians and those who don't buy into the lies that you eat up.

Go ahead. It gives you pleasure. Go nuts.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

You don't have a factual basis for claiming evolution is a pile of lies. Your arguments are poorly constructed. Your understanding is severely lacking.

That's an awful lot of personal attacks from a person who is reporting posts.

It's pretty clear you've gone end stage BR and that's a bit sad because like so many who have ended up banned from here, you'll be pointing the finger at everyone else and not at yourself. Your sig amounts to screaming. Your posts have degenerated to alternating between profanity laden ranting, and personal attacks. Then to top it all off, you're going to start reporting posts and calling for moderation of OTHERS to deal with the fact that the profanity and name calling won't bend others to your thinking.

When it becomes incomprehensible to you that you've earned a point for all these actions, you'll of course lose it to the extreme. How can the rules possibly apply to a person who "CARES" so much while everyone else cares so little?!? How can they not be wrong when you are so "SMART" and they are so dumb?!?

It's what has happened to a dozen posters on here of the same political orientation.

It's sad.

Perhaps you should start a second handle right now. Then, like Mumbo, you can attempt to claim the same IP isn't the same person due to join dates or something fun like that.

I honestly don't believe you have evaluated the data. I honestly don't believe you truly understand what evolution is or how it works. I honestly don't believe you even understand the incredibly flawed counterarguments against evolution that you parrot. The only thing I honestly believe you do understand is how to close your mind while pretending it's open.

You don't know what he's done. All you know is you disagree with his conclusion as stated here. It it is literally incomprehensible to you that he has a different opinion. This is nothing new, of course. You (well, not just you) react the same way when I talk about global warming. It's the same accusations:

I'm sorry, Fellowship, but although BR can be brash at times, he's right here. You have NOT evaluated the data. You have ignored it.

I don't think you know that. You're speculating. It's certainly possible, but while Fellowship has always been outspoken in his religious beliefs, he's never come across as someone that utterly ignores data as far as I can tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

He couldn't have possibly evaluated the data and come to a different conclusion.

That's a complete impossibly. It's unfathomable. It is not within the realm of outcomes that could ever occur.

The only possible outcome is that he has to be some malicious intent.

BR is a prime example of so-called "liberals" that cannot fathom legitimate disagreement. We've seen this with the President almost ad nauseam. People that disagree with "liberals" must be:

Racist

Stupid

Ignorant

Bigoted

Poor-hating

Environment-hating

Selfish

war mongering

There is so such thing as legitimate disagreement with these people. We've had countless examples, but the best one outside these boards is the President of the United States. He is the epitome of "liberal elite" in almost every sense. And those that disagree need to sit in the back of the bus.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm sorry, Fellowship, but although BR can be brash at times, he's right here. You have NOT evaluated the data. You have ignored it.

Simply untrue. I have a great appreciation for all of you guys here at AI. If I did not I would not be drawn to this forum. That being said, I have learned over the years that taking arguments at face value is foolish. There may be people that I like, people I am friends with or these people could be family or neighbors. These people could tell me all the reasons why the war in Iraq was justified etc. Some of these people may actually be service men and women. While I am not serving in the armed forces. This does not make their position "right" just because they are the "seemingly" "perceived" experts privy to all the information that the average citizen of wider society is not made aware of it could be well argued. I will still rely on my own cognitive abilities and intelligence that I gather from the information in the field. You see arguments are not made perfect, correct and indisputable merely due to factors such as rank and prestige in a given specialty. Neither are arguments for war made perfect or correct by way of chants of "the others are un-patriotic" and "they are with the terrorists". Such is not enough for my mind to be alligned with a projected reality of fact as is being projected and sold by a certain field of "specialists".

So when you or others declare that I simply have not considered the "evidence" and that I am ignorant etc. You are no different than the ones I listed above who toss around their justifications and chants.

My view is this: It is ok for people to come at the subject of origins with differing views. There is no need to attempt to silence views which may differ.

BR finds ways to enter every thread with two points.

A. Find something to say that is condescending to those who are Christian.

B. Find something to say that is condescending to those who are not in agreement with Darwin's theory of evolution.

You and others may not see this as troubling that EVERY thread has to be twisted in this fasion by BR. That is ok. We can all see things differently. Which is my point tonton.

So you are free to see things as you do with regard to christians and evolution just as BR does and I am free to my views which may differ from yours.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Simply untrue. I have a great appreciation for all of you guys here at AI. If I did not I would not be drawn to this forum. That being said, I have learned over the years that taking arguments at face value is foolish. There may be people that I like, people I am friends with or these people could be family or neighbors. These people could tell me all the reasons why the war in Iraq was justified etc. Some of these people may actually be service men and women. While I am not serving in the armed forces. This does not make their position "right" just because they are the "seemingly" "perceived" experts privy to all the information that the average citizen of wider society is not made aware of it could be well argued. I will still rely on my own cognitive abilities and intelligence that I gather from the information in the field. You see arguments are not made perfect, correct and indisputable merely due to factors such as rank and prestige in a given specialty. Neither are arguments for war made perfect or correct by way of chants of "the others are un-patriotic" and "they are with the terrorists". Such is not enough for my mind to be alligned with a projected reality of fact as is being projected and sold by a certain field of "specialists".

So when you or others declare that I simply have not considered the "evidence" and that I am ignorant etc. You are no different than the ones I listed above who toss around their justifications and chants.

My view is this: It is ok for people to come at the subject of origins with differing views. There is no need to attempt to silence views which may differ.

BR finds ways to enter every thread with two points.

A. Find something to say that is condescending to those who are Christian.

B. Find something to say that is condescending to those who are not in agreement with Darwin's theory of evolution.

You and others may not see this as troubling that EVERY thread has to be twisted in this fasion by BR. That is ok. We can all see things differently. Which is my point tonton.

So you are free to see things as you do with regard to christians and evolution just as BR does and I am free to my views which may differ from yours.

Fellows

You probably realize I'm not attacking you here, but I am curious as to your reasoning on not accepting evolution.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You probably realize I'm not attacking you here, but I am curious as to your reasoning on not accepting evolution.

I don't mind you asking at all. After being taught evolution in all the years of biology through high school and then in college biology class I found that this idea of origins is not sound for many reasons despite it being so seemingly mainstream in the classroom etc. I started asking more questions during and after college and reading many books, doing self study and what I found is that this whole idea of evolution is flawed on every turn. Not just one turn but many turns. Who is to say for example that all life originated from a common ancestor? What if there were several ancestors for example I would wonder. I never got answers to good questions from college professors but the dogma and script of Darwins evolution continued from the professors etc. These teachers and professors would argue that the fossil record somehow indicates evidence of evolution explaining our rise and added complexity over the years. I disagree completely. I in fact see when looking at the fossil record that life arose abruptly and completely. From simple organisms such as trilobites all the way to complex beings like us Humans. What I do not see from the fossil record that evolution proposes one to accept are examples of "missing links" from one species transition and generation or evolution to another species. Just not there and so many of the examples in the textbooks over the decades are known frauds. So I do not believe the fossil record indicates evolution took place over the years and years. In fact I and others who dare have a different take see the fossil record indicating that life came about rather abruptly.

I have studied this matter for decades now and am simply not on board that evolution explains origins and the diverse kingdoms of plants and animals etc.

I do know that natural selection takes place but this in my view does not equal evolution as a means of origins. The lie in the theory of evolution is the notion that natural selection is the same thing as evolution. I think it is clear that natural selection is a very specific idea which is true. But natural selection does not explain the origins of species.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Who is to say for example that all life originated from a common ancestor?

No one. Evolution does not address this question. If you were taught that the origin of life or of evolutionary lines is part of what evolution is about, then you had very poor teachers, or you had a very poor understanding of what was taught to you.

Quote:

What if there were several ancestors for example I would wonder.

Not only is this possible, but it's likely, and any evoluionary scientist worth his salt would tell you that.

Quote:

I never got answers to good questions from college professors...

Either they were piss poor professors, or you had already shown a propensity for not listening anyway by that time, so they didn't think it was worth trying to explain to someone who wouldn't listen.

Quote:

...but the dogma and script of Darwins evolution continued from the professors etc.

And so did the solid science. The fact that you evidently missed it is the basis for my conclusion that you ignored it. There is plenty of solid science there.

Quote:

These teachers and professors would argue that the fossil record somehow indicates evidence of evolution explaining our rise and added complexity over the years. *I disagree completely.

Well no shit, Sherlock. You don't believe fossil dating methods are solid science. Unless you can recognize dating of the first mammals was well before dating of the first hominids, you wouldn't have any basis for understanding that one came well before the other. It would be like trying to understand mathematics while claiming that the number seven doesn't exist.

Quote:

I in fact see when looking at the fossil record that life arose abruptly and completely. *From simple organisms such as trilobites all the way to complex beings like us Humans.

The earliest trilobite fossils have been dated at over 500 million years old. The earliest hominids have been dated at 14 million years old. What don't you understand about that? Oh yeah, isotope dating is bunk, too... Scientists must have made it all up just to support the evolutionary 'lie'.

Quote:

What I do not see from the fossil record that evolution proposes one to accept are examples of "missing links" from one species transition and generation or evolution to another species.

There are plenty of links. When one gets filled, creationists demand another two in between those three. It never stops. I believe BR posted a perfect cartoon illustrating this phenomenon.

Quote:

Just not there and so many of the examples in the textbooks over the decades are known frauds.

And it was taught to you that they were frauds. A few frauds in a theory doesn't translate into a flawed theory. Imagine if you applied that reasoning to Christianity!

Quote:

So I do not believe the fossil record indicates evolution took place over the years and years. *In fact I and others who dare have a different take see the fossil record indicating that life came about rather abruptly.

As I've said, there has been much science that you were either taught by extremely incompetent professors and teachers, or you have closed your mind to that science before you even started.

Quote:

I have studied this matter for decades now and am simply not on board that evolution explains origins and the diverse kingdoms of plants and animals etc.

One problem is that you are not paying attention to the fact that evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life, which is a completely separate topic.

Quote:

I do know that natural selection takes place but this in my view does not equal evolution as a means of origins. *The lie [you can call it a mistake if that's what you believe, but to call it a lie implies intent. Is that really what you believe?] in the theory of evolution is the notion that natural selection is the same thing as evolution.

This is not the claim by any evolutionist. Another failed understanding on your part.

Quote:

I think it is clear that natural selection is a very specific idea which is true.

Why? Is it because you can observe it?

Quote:

But natural selection does not explain the origins of species.

No, it doesn't. Mutation, sudden environmental change, migration, and many other factors all combine to explain speciation.

No one. Evolution does not address this question. If you were taught that the origin of life or of evolutionary lines is part of what evolution is about, then you had very poor teachers, or you had a very poor understanding of what was taught to you.
.

I think it is interesting to say the least that your arguments are pretty much the above. That I either had horrible inept teachers / professors or I was not willing to listen to what they said or a combination of both. Or that I had a poor understanding of what was being taught.

I would argue that yes the teachers / professors were awful at making their horrible cases to me as a mere student. And the reason they were horrible is because what they were passing as science was not science but rather conjecture / speculation and their personal bias. I don't blame them as they are a product of the crap which was taught to them.

What I do blame are all of the enablers like yourself who absolve all the problems with evolution and toss it up as Well you did not understand what you were taught, or you had horrible teachers / professors. This is a pass you are giving the study of evolution and you pass blame to anyone and everyone. Myself and my professors / teachers but not the field itself.

The funny thing is that I have read the textbooks over the years and the books I bought at Borders, B&N, half price books, and Amazon that were books that explain evolution and frankly these books all said the same things that my professors taught.

I suppose all of my books were written by awful Authors and / or a combination of my lack of understanding what these books were trying to convey.

Sure tonton.. Nice way to simplify the situation. It is either me or the ones that teach me that has the problem. Not the theory of evolution itself.....

If you truly believe that I will not bother to argue with you as it would be pointless.

But I think that defense of evolution does not hold water.

I could say similar things about any matter.

You are not a democrat???? you just were not taught well or you did not want to learn what the good teachers wanted to teach you.

You are not a republican???? you just were not taught well or you did not want to learn what the good teachers wanted to teach you.

You are not a fan of Kim Jong Il???? You have been told lies from the western media and you must not want to learn the truth about this wonderful leader.

What complete nonsense. That does NOT hold water tonton and of all people I would think you would know this.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

I appreciate that you recognize that some very foundational claims are widely and commonly made about the theory of evolution.

What I find amazing is not that this is the case for anyone who pays attention. I find it telling that many (the ones who defend evolution at any cost) are seemingly blind as to what is taught about the theory around the country. Not to mention the books widely found in bookstores and libraries and what these books convey about this theory.

To get the argument that well,,,,,,

They never said this....

You did not understand what they said....

Yadda Yadda Yadda...

It is very interesting to me.

Fellowship

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Fellows, name one specific problem you have with the evidence for evolution. Let's go through this item by item.

I just don't find that genetic mutations result in a paradigm (reality) where by we get amazing designs that work well in nature. For example a given organism like an anteater having just the right body structure to amass dinner for the day and then having just the right enzymes to digest specific diet.

That a Giraffe with the long neck evolved to get to the right "design"

If life did show up on the planet one day and the day before our planet was one with no life I have a hard time believing that this life just happened to have what it needed to replicate from day one and reproduce. That takes a bit of faith I would argue????

Or is it science BR?

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

I just don't find that genetic mutations result in a paradigm (reality) where by we get amazing designs that work well in nature.

I'll let the University of California Museum of Paleontology do some of the talking for me here.

I quote:

Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens by chance ignores half of the picture.

Quote:

For example a given organism like an anteater having just the right body structure to amass dinner for the day and then having just the right enzymes to digest specific diet.

I don't know enough about anteaters to make a specific claim about their digestive systems. However, to assume without looking at the evidence that the anteater has the perfect digestion system is actually a rather large mistake.

Consider the rabbit. Do you know anything about their digestive system? They have two types of shit: regular shit that's hard and special soft shit which they then eat as to absorb the nutrients in the food they originally ate the first time. The part of the rabbit's digestive track that breaks down the plant matter into an absorbable state is situated after the part of the digestive track that actually absorbs nutrients.

Quote:

That a Giraffe with the long neck evolved to get to the right "design"

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. You just find it generally hard to believe that a giraffe could have evolved? I don't get your specific objection.

Quote:

If life did show up on the planet one day and the day before our planet was one with no life I have a hard time believing that this life just happened to have what it needed to replicate from day one and reproduce. That takes a bit of faith I would argue????

You are talking about abiogenesis with regard to the origins of life on this planet. That's a different field of study from evolution. The fact that you find it hard to believe does not mean it requires faith.

Quote:

Or is it science BR?

I asked for a specific objection to something in evolution. What you went on to then write demonstrated very little knowledge of what evolution is, what it claims, and what evidence exists for it. I can only infer that you have forgotten much of what you were taught originally.

It would be like you asking me what my objection to Christianity is and I respond with "well, I really don't like that Shiva fellow and I'm not quite sure why Mohammad had to put his only son, Thor, on the cross to die for Aphrodite's sins against the apple tree."

You would probably be really frustrated that I'm not even speaking in the terms of Christianity and demonstrate a general lack of understanding of the subject matter. You would probably point me in the direction of the Bible to learn a little more so that you could discuss it with me. You would then be further upset when I made the same objections again and again each time you casually mention the truth of Christianity, even though you already pointed out how flawed my understanding was, even giving me the resources I needed to actually learn a thing or two.

Fellows, please, read through this website. It goes over many of the misconceptions people have about evolution. Please, Dale, read it with an open mind. And if you come back with more objections, which I know you probably will, at least speak in the language of the science and stop throwing out these reprehensibly inaccurate claims.

Ok right off the bat I get this from the linked website you just gave me:

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

Why does tonton do you figure think that the idea of a common ancestor is bad teaching? And do you think it is bad teaching BR?

Tonton? feel free to answer this yourself as well.

This is from tonton's post #130 above:

Quote: Originally Posted by Fellowship
Who is to say for example that all life originated from a common ancestor?

tonton:
No one. Evolution does not address this question. If you were taught that the origin of life or of evolutionary lines is part of what evolution is about, then you had very poor teachers, or you had a very poor understanding of what was taught to you.

--------------------------------

ok can someone let me know what's up here????

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

I'll let the University of California Museum of Paleontology do some of the talking for me here.

I quote:

Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens by chance ignores half of the picture.

"Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation"

I disagree completely. This is speculation that a materialist must assume if there was no intelligent designer.

Quote:

Fellows, please, read through this website. It goes over many of the misconceptions people have about evolution. Please, Dale, read it with an open mind. And if you come back with more objections, which I know you probably will, at least speak in the language of the science and stop throwing out these reprehensibly inaccurate claims.

It is too broad to say that ALL LIFE shares a single common ancestor. Now, all life from the same abiogenesis event certainly should, but I'm getting a little out of my depth on that to say so with absolute certainty. Remember, though, how that first life started is in the realm of the field of abiogenesis, not evolution.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Primary / Ultimate what have you I still come back at you with the SAME argument which you really did not address and that is...

BR you don't KNOW that "Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation"

You assume this.

Assumption is not in any shape or size science.

Fellows

It's not an assumption. It is backed up by tons of evidence. There are three main sources of genetic variation, random mutation being the predominant one. That website gives a brief overview of what evolution is all about. You're getting stuck on page 1 because they didn't list all the evidence that exists for it in a fucking primer?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

It is too broad to say that ALL LIFE shares a single common ancestor. Now, all life from the same abiogenesis event certainly should, but I'm getting a little out of my depth on that to say so with absolute certainty. Remember, though, how that first life started is in the realm of the field of abiogenesis, not evolution.

I respect that you refer me to the field of abiogenesis.

I have to admit however that much of what is out there (books, biology classes, textbooks, websites, etc.) make the claim about a common ancestor in the discussion of and in the context of evolution. I promise you I am not dreaming this stuff up.

Hell of a claim if I may say so. Therefore I questioned it (this claim that we all originate from a common ancestor). This is where my questioning began with what I was taught in biology class. Let me assure you this was not the only unanswered question I posed to my professors. In fact one of my professors when I asked him a valid question (this very question here above in fact) told me flat out... "You must be one of those creationists.."

I talked to the dean about this exchange. As you can imagine I have dealt with very biased wankers for a long while...

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

You come in with comparatively very little knowledge on the topic, armed with tired and long disproven misconceptions, falsehoods, fabrications, and the idea that you already have the ultimate answer anyway. Honestly, it's not all that surprising to hear "You must be one of those creationists..."

When asked to simply get a little background knowledge of what evolution is all about, you fight tooth and nail, kicking and screaming every step of the way. You get hung up on different words here or there and think you have an "AHA! GOTCHA!" moment as if you, a complete layman who is perusing this stuff for the first time, exposed such an obvious gaping hole in the reasoning of generations of scientists who have dedicated their lives to field and laboratory research.

Hubris. It's nothing less than hubris for you to sit there and not even get through a primer on evolution without thinking you exposed a huge lie.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

You misinterpret a word or phrase. You have a "GOTCHA!" moment. You take offense to being corrected. You play the poor Christian victim card. You learn nothing. I get tired of the bullshit. I leave a biting quote and bugger off to bed, wondering how the fuck people can be so willfully ignorant.

"You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into."

You come in with comparatively very little knowledge on the topic, armed with tired and long disproven misconceptions, falsehoods, fabrications, and the idea that you already have the ultimate answer anyway. Honestly, it's not all that surprising to hear "You must be one of those creationists..."

When asked to simply get a little background knowledge of what evolution is all about, you fight tooth and nail, kicking and screaming every step of the way. You get hung up on different words here or there and think you have an "AHA! GOTCHA!" moment as if you, a complete layman who is perusing this stuff for the first time, exposed such an obvious gaping hole in the reasoning of generations of scientists who have dedicated their lives to field and laboratory research.

Hubris. It's nothing less than hubris for you to sit there and not even get through a primer on evolution without thinking you exposed a huge lie.

wow...

I am sorry you really feel you have to reduce those who use their mind and think for themselves.

I hope one day you realize your mistake in this manner.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

You reduce yourself when you pass of an inability to comprehend something as valid evidence against it. That's not thinking for yourself at all.

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

And now I'm truly off.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Author Luther Sunderland saw the problems with the fossil record, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. 1

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2
OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. In my research, I haven't found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them 3
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Wasn't he saying Bush was responsible for the lack of transitional fossils?

I wouldn't be surprised. Actually, maybe getting into an evolution debate with jimmac would be entertaining:

SDW: Here are the issues I see (several paragraphs)

Trump: And here some of the issues I see....(several paragraphs)

Fellows: Here are some of the problem areas...

jimmac: JEEEZ! Everyone knows evolution is real, SDW! It's like in that movie, "Evolution" from 2001, where the alien organism EVOLVES into something else. A lot like real evolution. And everyone else sees it except republicans because they never see things for reality just like george bush didn't.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Author Luther Sunderland saw the problems with the fossil record, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. 1

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2
OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. In my research, I haven't found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4

I see you got frustrated, desperately searched the internet for your favorite phrase "evolution is a fraud," found a Christian anti-science propaganda website, and direct quoted a bit of nonsense. Had you spent a few more minutes researching the full story behind what you blindly copied and pasted, you'd have quickly seen through the distortions, lies, and bullshit presented by the ignorant creationists. You have not found a smoking gun. You have not found anything at all.

So, to recap:

1. When asked for specific objections to evolutionary theory, Fellows provides vague assertions demonstrating a clear lack of fundamental knowledge of what evolutionary theory is about in the first place.

2. When pointed in the direction of a primer on evolutionary theory, Fellows gets hung up on the first page because the entire fossil record and every laboratory experiment isn't cited in a fucking barely-skim-the-surface-intro-let's-get-you-up-to-speed-with-the-very-very-very-basics-of-evolution website.

3. When the sheer ridiculousness of Fellows objections are laid out in front of him, he takes offense, seeks refuge with the other ignorant creationists, and randomly posts a very non-sequitur and thoroughly debunked (if one would bother to research it for all of 2 minutes) nonsensical gotcha argument against evolution.

And creationists wonder why they are ridiculed.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Had we not been able to take direct measurements and prove otherwise, Fellowship would be fighting tooth and nail that the sun revolves around the Earth. Seriously, whenever in history Christians have gone against science, be it astronomy, geology, anatomy... they have been wrong every time. Obviously, faith cannot be relied upon to find truth.